The
Iniquity Of Interest.
Many
Christians have bank accounts on which they earn interest and think
nothing of
it, they might be surprised how dim a view the vast majority of our
pre-Reformation predecessors would take of such a practice.
This
prompts two questions: what is the Biblical perspective? And why
have
our views
changed?
When
considering
what is normative for disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ,
we do
well to start at His feet.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mt.5.18-19)
It
is
the
position of the Lord Jesus that the Law stands until it is fulfilled
and
completed under the provisions of the New Testament.
As
we
would
expect, this tallies nicely with the teaching of the Holy Spirit
to the
Hebrew prophets.
Moses
was
taught
of the intense danger of taking personal initiatives with God’
commands:
2 Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut.4.2)
Isaiah
declares
the Law to be the light and criterion by which our dull and
clumsy
minds may ascertain God’s pleasure:
20 To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no
light
in them.
(Isa.8.20)
Ezekiel
describes
priests who refuse to expound the Law plainly,
and the consequences:
26 Her priests have violated my law,
and have profaned
mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and
profane,
neither have they shewed difference
between
the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths,
and I am profaned among them. (Ez. 22.25)
As
lovers
of
Christ, and partakers of the New Testament, we recognise many
changes have
taken place to the Law, by virtue of the ratification of the cross.
Most
radically of all our relationship with the Law for justification is
utterly
changed.
We
have
died
in Christ, now we live in Him, and He in us. In Christ, the
promise of
Jeremiah is fulfilled in believers, that
the Law is
written on our hearts and minds.
A
key example
of a necessary Law change, is the change
of
the
priesthood, foretold by the Spirit in Psalm 110.4, and necessitated by
a new
covenant. Another example is foreseen in the offering of sacrifices by
Gentiles
(Mal.1.11, Isa.60.7) and a hint that Gentiles too will enter the
priesthood
(Isa.66.20-22).
So
what
does
the Law of God say about taking interest on financial loans?
25 ¶ If thou lend money to any
of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt
not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt
thou lay
upon him usury. (Ex.22.24)
36 Take thou no usury of him, or
increase: but fear thy
God; that thy brother may live with thee.
37 Thou shalt
not give him thy
money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
(Lev.25.36-7)
The
Hebrew
word used here for increase is tybrt (Tarvit) or ‘multiplication’ and for usury is Kvn
(Nashekh) which as Turretin reminds us is a
cognate of the word
for ‘bite’ or ‘serpent’.
He
claims
therefore that the sense is
of an excessive rate of interest, one which ‘bites’. This view finds
no
direct
support in the text or its context, and raises an immediate problem –
what rate
of interest is a ‘biting’ one, especially for a poor person in need of
money?
Is there any rate that doesn’t have some bite? How do we know what’s
clean and
what’s not, if it isn’t mentioned and it isn’t specified?
The
second
claim is that the context
of both passages makes reference of usury to the poor. Turretin is
right. He
goes on to claim that therefore usury at high rates is forbidden to
the
poor. However
does that then justify taking usury from others, at other rates? He
claims it
does. The third passage to directly prohibit interest taking is found
in Deuteronomy:
19 Thou shalt
not lend upon
usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: 20 Unto
a
stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but
unto thy
brother thou shalt not lend upon usury:
that the LORD
thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest
thine hand to in the land whither thou goest
to possess it. (Deut. 23.19)
Here
no
mention of poverty is made,
so if usury is only forbidden to the poor, or excessive rates only
forbidden to
the poor, that must be read in to this passage.
It
is
also claimed that the
permission to employ usury to strangers implies that it cannot
therefore be an
intrinsically evil practice. Does Turretin suggest then that divorce
for
grounds other than fornication, or polygamy, or the taking of a
captive
bride
ostensibly without consent are therefore intrinsically clean or
acceptable
practices because they are explicitly tolerated*?
Christ
argues
otherwise (Matt.19.7-9).
Other
references
to usury taking in
the Old Testament rank it with serious sins, like bribery, gossip and
deceit.
For
example,
Psalm 15:
2 He that walketh
uprightly,
and worketh righteousness, and speaketh
the truth in his heart.
3 He that
backbiteth
not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh
up a reproach against his neighbour.
4 In whose eyes a vile person is
contemned; but he honoureth them that
fear
the LORD. He
that sweareth to his own
hurt,
and changeth not.
5 He that
putteth
not out his money to usury, nor taketh
reward against
the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
(Ps
15.2-4)
Proverbs
also
condemn usury:
8 He that by usury and unjust gain
increaseth
his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
(Pr.28.8)
Or
Ezekiel,
5 But if a man be just, and do that
which is lawful and
right,
6 And hath not eaten upon the
mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house
of
Israel,
neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a
menstruous woman,
7 And hath not oppressed any, but
hath restored
to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given
his
bread
to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
8 He that hath not given
forth upon usury,
neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand
from
iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, (Ez.
18.5-8)
Jeremiah
regards
it as the kind of sin which would justify universal
scorn,
10 ¶ Woe is me, my mother, that
thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the
whole
earth!
I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet
every one of them doth curse me. (Jer. 15.10).
So
a
basic question for us is are there indications that this law
belongs to the ceremonial or civil laws and that it no longer applies
to New
Testament believers?
It
is
claimed that the Saviour’s parable of the talents justifies usury
taking.
The parable is found in Matthew 25.14-30 and Luke 19.12-27. The
nobleman who gives
the talents reproves the unfaithful servant, with the conclusion, ‘Thou
oughtest
therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at
my coming
I should have received mine own with usury.’(v.27 in Matthew)
Here it is claimed is justification for the use of usury in the New
Testament.
However a closer examination undermines this confidence.
Firstly
it
is by no means clear that the Greek word translated usury ‘tokov’,
literally
‘a
bringing forth’ refers to interest on a loan – it may refer
to a change from one currency to another on which commission is
charged. If so, the passage has no reference to
interest at all, and has no
impact on the strict prohibitions listed above. Even
hypothetically granting
that the sense of the term is to be applied to interest, the proof of
its
cleanness is distinctly threadbare.
The
unfaithful
servant accuses the nobleman of unreasonable severity and
extortionate behaviour:
21 For I feared thee, because thou
art an austere man:
thou takest up that thou layedst
not down, and reapest that thou didst not
sow. (Luke 19.21)
The
nobleman
strictly reproves his servant’s churlish and ungrateful
thoughts, and offers him reasoning according to his own mindset:
22 And
he saith
unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I
judge thee, thou
wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was
an
austere
man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
(Luke
19.22)
Does
this
wholly justify the activity the nobleman goes on to recommend?
Wasn’t the nobleman’s original command to trade with the money? That
certainly
appears to be his expectation on his return, ‘that he might know how much
every man had gained by
trading.’
At
the
very least, offering the money for usury was second best, and he
uses it as a foil a reproof to highlight the servant’s laziness and
wickedness in
doing absolutely nothing with his talent. However, there’s reason to
believe he’s
using one sin to highlight an even graver one. The nobleman starts
with
the servant’s
own iniquitous premise, ‘Thou
knewest
that I was an austere man, taking
up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow’
(Luke). Not only is the servant’s attitude disrespectful, in the light
of his lord’s amazing bounty to the other servants it’s exceedingly
mistaken.
It is a lie. The lord repeats his servant’s lie as though it were true
and
draws a conclusion from it, ‘Wherefore
then gavest not thou my money into
the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?’ (Luke).
How
faithful
a description of taking interest the nobleman has given.
It is taking up where nothing has been
laid down. It
is reaping where there has been no sowing. There is no risk to the
lender, it
is not an investment or stock, it is a simple loan on which automatic
profit is
sought. If the borrower fails to restore the loan, he may be
imprisoned
or
enslaved. It is as though the lender had entire and sole title to the
money, as
though it was his permanent, eternal possession.
This
is
a dangerous foundation on which to build a commendation of
taking interest. It appears all the more dangerous given the Lord
Jesus’
example of an evil man and evil practice as a shock tactic to awaken
sleepy,
world-blinded Christians out of the same state of sloth as the wicked
servant in
at least one other place – Luke 16.1-9.
There
is
strong
evidence that the Lord Jesus had no intention of sanitising
interest-taking
in another passage, Luke 6.30-35.
30 Give to every man that asketh
of thee; and of him that taketh away thy
goods ask them
not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do
to you, do ye also
to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love
you, what thank have
ye? for sinners also love those that love
them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do
good to you, what
thank have ye? for sinners also do even
the
same.
34 And if ye lend to them of
whom ye hope to
receive, what thank have ye? for sinners
also lend to
sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do
good, and lend,
hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall
be the
children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to
the
evil.
Here
the
Saviour
commands an open and generous heart to those who seek help.
Godliness
is generous and free in its giving, if not unwise. He warns us not to
be
insistent on receiving all the loan back,
indeed to be
ready to loan in such a spirit that we freely give, sometimes knowing
full well
the loan will probably not be returned, even if not formally offered
as
a gift.
It is as though the Lord is tightening up the 8th
commandment, just
as He has strengthened the obligations of other commands. What a shame
then for
Christians to indulge in lending on interest, even if we sanitise the
process
by loaning to the poor and needy through a formal and selective
institution
like a bank! How many third world nations have been enslaved and
manipulated by
godless Western bankers?
Have
we
become
unknowingly complicit?
The
strongest
reproof however comes in the words our Lord uses in
describing the hardness
and ungodliness of unbelievers. He says, ‘for
sinners also lend to
sinners, to receive as
much again.’
Are
we
even
worse than the unregenerate by insisting on receiving interest on top?
Canon XVII
of the Nicene council on
Usury
(The
first
ecumenical council which established the consubstantiality of the
Son with
the Father).
As
to
the
question of why our views have changed, one needs to consult the works
of Eck (Luther’s
opponent), Melancthon and Calvin.
*He
rightly
argues precisely the opposite for polygamy, p.122, para
VIII, Giger’s
translation,
ed. Dennison, P&R, NJ. 1994.
